my poor judgment,) not only was every modification of our representative system refused as unnecessary, but its very abuses defended as merits and advantages. It was obvious to my mind that that course would never last, and when the disfranchisement of the Irish forty-shilling freeholders was carried into effect, I foresaw that that example of curtailing a franchise upon the ground of expediency would infallibly open the door to a corresponding measure of extending franchises upon the same ground of expediency. The combination of these events, connected with the other general causes to which I have slightly adverted, seemed to me (long before the Duke of Wellington's government retired from office) to render reform inevitable. Being inevitable, it could not, I thought, be useful, unless it were generally satisfactory to those who sought it; it could not be satisfactory unless it were extensive, and it could not be extensive unless it struck at the root of the grievance of which the people (and, in great measure, not unreasonably) complained. These were the views which led, or rather compelled me to be a party to the measure which the government brought into parliament, and I dreaded its rejection as one of the greatest calamities which could befal the country. That result, however, having occurred, we have all a common interest in considering what the safety of our common country requires at our hands. I am sure that your lordship will look at this question in all its bearings with a fair and impartial eye: and nothing would give me more pleasure than to be able to remove, by personal communication with you, any doubts which you may feel upon particular parts of the measure. But I am sure that, at all events, you will not be offended at what I have written to you, and that you will do me the justice to believe that my anxiety as to the final settlement of this business has no origin but that attachment to the substantial blessings L of our general institutions and polity, which every good Englishman is bound to cherish and support. Believe me, my dear Lord, My dear Lord, With great truth and regard, GODERICH. Llansanfraed, November 27, 1831. Most willingly do I avail myself of your lordship's inquiry, to explain what my motives were in voting as I did against the second reading of the Reform Bill, and what my present views are with regard to that measure. If I had an opportunity, I would gladly have done this before I left London, for I have been subject to great misrepresentation, and there is no one whose approval of my parliamentary conduct I am more anxious to have than your lordship's. Sensible as I am of the use of close boroughs, in uniting the two Houses of parliament, and giving to the Lords and to the King an unseen influence in the assembly, which now virtually possesses the whole power of the State, I still feel that this reasoning could never be made intelligible to the people at large; and that we must, for the sake of public opinion, remodel this part of the representative system, as well as enfranchise some of the principal towns hitherto not included in it. But it seemed to me that in this plan there was too much of theory and too little of constitutional principle, and that there was an attempt to do too much at once. If the ancient prerogative, as to issuing and discontinuing writs had been revived, I thought it would have been an equally efficient and a safer course; and I dreaded the precedent of founding representation upon numbers, as likely to lead to a farther and to an indefinite extension. As to details, my objection chiefly lay against the division of counties, and the low qualification of householders. Having, therefore, frequently expressed these opinions, it seemed hardly honest to vote for going into a committee, on the pretence of contending for some modification of the bill, when we were plainly told, in the course of the debate, that that must not be expected. I went to town fully resolved to vote for the second reading, and was diverted from that resolution only by the consideration I have just mentioned, added to a persuasion (which I was encouraged in holding) that Lord Harrowby, or some leading member of opposition, would move a formal declaration, pledging the House to support a measure of the same kind, somewhat different in form. In this expectation I gave my vote, and was grievously disappointed a few days afterwards at finding that nothing of the kind was to be done. Had I known this beforehand, I believe my vote would have been different so nicely balanced was my mind upon the precise question then before the House. Of the expediency, and, indeed, of the indispensable necessity, of some measure of the kind, my conviction is so strong, that I should not hesitate in voting for a bill substantially the same, if no modification can be obtained, rather than throw it out again, although I might strenuously endeavour to alter what appears to me objectionable. But the state of public opinion is such, that I think it would be madness to resist the disfranchisement of decayed and close boroughs; and if many of the former opponents make this avowal, I hope it will induce the framers of the bill to meet that disposition by such concessions as will lessen their scruples, and take off the appearance of inconsistency in their conduct as much as possible. One thing I will frankly acknowledge, that I was in error as to the degree and the extensive prevalence of public House of Commons on the Reform bill. North's, an eloquent and finished oration. O'Connell pithy, forcible, strong sense, and expressive idiom-a dramatic display of intense feeling. Graham sensible, but not animated. Attwood vehement, wordy, and involved, but much practical good sense.' It will be seen that not only the date, but the greater part of the contents of the following letter, addressed to myself, determines its place. The first part of it, relating personally to myself, I am induced to give, because it shows how the bishop's kindness towards his relations was tempered and regulated by a restraining sense of duty. Having three nephews in holy orders, he did not, as bishop, prefer either of them, nor, it may be added, ask for preferment for them; in his private capacity always aiding and befriending those of his own. family-in his public, always considering who had the first claims upon him. My dear William, Deanery, St. Paul's, January 26, 1831. Your answer in regard to is just what I expected. I did not feel myself at liberty to make you an absolute offer of it, knowing that there are several clergymen in my diocese of great merit, and much in want, yet if there had been on your part a strong desire to settle there, I should probably have yielded to it. The living will, I hope, be the means of rewarding one of the most meritorious of my clergy, and of conducing to an arrangement that will promote the happiness of a large and excellent family. If so, it will not only do them and the parish good, but it will serve the cause of the church generally, when people know that the choice is made without reference to anything but merit. These are anxious and alarming times. There have been worse times, it is true, for the church in our own history, especially in the reign of Charles I. But the press is a new engine of frightful power, and it is, unhappily, in the hands almost entirely of our enemies. Laws upon parchment will never save the establishment, if the public mind is quite alienated. Indeed, those laws would soon be changed, especially by such a parliament as the reforming party wish to have. I hope the church party will be moderate but firm, that is, not stickling for everything that can be called a right, if the public opinion or feeling, or even prejudice, is universal against it. A concession to this feeling, although we may regard the feeling as unenlightened, is not cowardly, and it certainly is prudent. But the chief fear is, that the advocates for parliamentary reform will do too much at once. If the House of Commons is chosen entirely by the people, there is an end of monarchy and aristocracy, for in the House of Commons has long resided virtually, though not nominally, the whole power of the state. The only thing that has kept us from pure democracy has been the influence of the crown and the nobility, or great proprietors in the representative body. A few of those who see this danger, and who have no care for the church, may think to pacify the republicans by sacrificing the interests of the church. But this would be merely as a sop thrown to a surly dog. As soon as his appetite returned he would be more ravenous than before. I hope, therefore, a strong resistance will be made in the first instance, and that Lord Grey will prove himself the champion of the constitution. Lord Brougham, too, is, I am persuaded, anything but a democrat, or antiaristocrat, or anti-churchman. And they two, for eloquence, are a match for the whole House of Peers. In the House of Commons the strength is not with the ministry, |